Drug War

Richard Branson: If the War on Drugs Was One of My Businesses, "I would have shut it down many, many years ago"


This pretty much says it all. Thanks, Richard Branson, for a succinct and forceful critique of the War on Drugs.

NEXT: Game of Thrones Returns: As Civilization Collapses, Government Is No Help

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump/Branson 2016!

    1. Is there anyway to fit more ego on a presidential ticket than that?

        1. Rumor has it grandmao pantsuit is going to pick a woman for VP, because war on wiminz. I’m thinking white squaw.

          1. It’s like she’s determined to shoot herself in the foot and the Republicans are determined to let her win.

            1. The sooner both parties self destruct, the better.

  2. However, his war on dental floss will continue.

    BOOM! Take that, Branson.

  3. Antique scuba hats. That’s how you catch’em. Go real gear, bros. Real gear. Hook right into the goddamn vegan pussy. Drugs are good. Just stay a long long way from the edges where the ripply glittering kens sparkle into strange infinities. Rare to come back from that but still more entertaining than all that death from cracking your brain case open after falling off the goddamn roof cleaning your fucking gutters.

  4. That was certainly the case at the UN this week, as officials decided to seize a letter signed by more than 1,000 leaders calling for an end to the war on drugs. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sander, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros, Warren Buffett and yours truly, along with more than a dozen former heads of state, hundreds of other legislators, cabinet ministers, former UN officials and celebrities had signed the letter.

    Hillary is going to end the war on drugs? Really?

    1. Nah, it’s just a threat to increase the “bribes” involved for ‘favored traders’.
      Crony drug-wars. Bootleggers and Baptists.

      1. Agreed. 100% pure signal. Of the names on that list, I expect exactly zero to do anything about ending any piece of the war on drugs. I even doubt the non-politically active ones will waive drug tests in their businesses, offices, and places of employment.

        1. Drug testing your employees is different than throwing people in jail for using.

          1. If you have nothing to hide…

          2. If you have every right to fire your employees and/or place performance above arbitrary standards, what’s the point of a drug test?

            Not lamenting their ability to fire employees as they see fit as much as the sycophantic token gestures within sycophantic token gestures.

            1. If you have every right to fire your employees and/or place performance above arbitrary standards, what’s the point of a drug test?

              The drug test is accepted by the courts more readily.

            2. what’s the point of a drug test?

              To make your insurance company happy.

        2. And everyone seems to know it is just bullshit she is saying to get elected, and yet everyone seems to go along with it.

          1. Hillary will never let those super-predators get hopped up on Demon Ganja and go on rape sprees through the suburbs while listening to gangster rap and playing violent video games, bro

            1. Pretty sure the ganja crazed super predators won’t take a 2nd look at granny pantsuit, so she really has nothing to worry about.

          2. And everyone seems to know it is just bullshit she is saying to get elected, and yet everyone seems to go along with it.

            I’m actually becoming quite depressed about this. Even one of the Koch Bros. was talking up Hillary as the preferred candidate. Like the primaries are already over and it’s time to get in line for the general election and/or start backing our next Pres.

    2. It’s more likely that Hillary will bomb Uruguay.

    3. Most of the people I see who say they are against the war on drugs are merely against marijuana being illegal. They don’t actually care if the government violates your right to control your own body when it comes to other drugs, and many even support it.

  5. Trump will end the War on Rugs.

    1. A Trump supporter last week told me, after I confessed to being a libertarian and saying that I don’t support any of the candidates from team purple ‘Trump doesn’t care if you smoke pot’. I said ‘Are you sure, because he doesn’t seem to be too clear on his position’. So he just repeated ‘Trump doesn’t care if you smoke pot’. Seriously, libertarians have only one issue, they want to smoke weed. Dumb Trump supporter knows nothing about Mexican ass sex and orphan slaves.

      1. You forgot food trucks.

        And cocktail parties.

        1. Juanito? That’s the equivalent of Joaozinho in Portuguese, lol. Oddly enough, I do know several people from Latin American who love the Donald.

  6. Branson/Mcafee 2016 – Slogan: Let’s get weird

    1. I’m going to take that ticket over granny pantsuit any day of the week.

  7. Without government, who would wage a war on drugs? We see that evil capitalism wouldn’t. Checkmate, loonytarians.

  8. OT from TP (sorry): Small-government Republican in action:


    The Utah lawmaker who introduced a state resolution declaring pornography a “public health crisis” has taken his opposition a step further. During a conservative talk radio appearance on Friday, state Rep. Todd Weiler (R) said that the internet, essentially, violates a person’s First Amendment rights by “delivering pornography” to people who don’t want to view it.

    “Someone may have the First Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to view pornography,” Weiler told Tony Perkins, host of “Washington Watch” radio show. “But what about my First Amendment right not to view it?”

    1. “”But what about my First Amendment right not to view it?””

      I fucking hate when I’m reading Politico and suddenly my computer is just swamped with hardcore pornography.

      1. That is the fucking worst.

        Also, I love that this retarded piece of shit actually thinks the First protects his right to not be offended. The first amendment means you don’t have to hear things you don’t like? Really? I wonder what his position is on campus “safe spaces” is.

      2. You should see what pops up on C-SPAN.

      3. Funny, 6 years ago, Steve Jobs basically said the same thing. However, Think Progress chose not to comment on Job’s views.

        1. Partisan hacks gonna partisan hack.

          It’s notable that this Republican is basically making ‘safe space’ arguments. He just wants his porn free safe space, like college students want their anti-microaggression safe spaces.

      4. Yeah, that Hillary porn is disturbing.

      5. He went to check his email at http://www.hotmail.com account and accidentally spelled it wrong… again.

    2. I don’t know about these people who keep ‘accidentally’ viewing pornography. To me this seems to be in the same ballpark as those who keep ‘accidentally’ getting viruses and toolbars installed.

      I’ve always found that you have to *go looking* for the above, it rarely *finds you* unless you go looking for it or are otherwise hanging around sketchy websites.

      1. Maybe his son is looking at porn and the dad doesn’t understand that the reason porn sites keep popping up in his search bar is because his kid keeps forgetting to delete the history.

      2. I’ve always found that you have to *go looking* for the above *poorly*, it rarely *finds you* unless you go looking for it *like an idiot* or are otherwise hanging around sketchy websites *and downloading stuff without any clue*.


    3. Another conservatard standing up for freedom.

    4. “And furthermore, why do all these homos keep sucking my dick?”

  9. “If the warondrugs was one of my businesses, I would have shut it down many, many years ago”

    Not so fast.

    First, it is ‘If the war on drugs WERE…’

    Second, The war on drugs is the perfect business. Lots of employment, lots of money being made, lots of favors being bought, and unlimited government subsidy.

    1. Yeah, it almost sounds like Branson has no clue just how profitable the WoD is for all levels of gubbermint, the legal system, and all the various contractors involved.

    2. I’m pretty sure was is correct since it’s not multiple war, it’s a single war on multiple things.

      Nikki or HM, can we get a ruling?

      1. It’s a subjunctive. “Were” is correct.

      2. The use of an if-clause signals a hypothetical counterfactual in the present or future (Conditional II), thus the mood of the verb in the subordinate clause should be that weird subjunctive cum conditional that modern English employs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that marking the subjective has been slowly but steadily falling out of common usage.

        1. Thanks for the edification.

          Was just sounded correct in my head so I was totally talking out of my ass.

      3. If I wasn’t (err, weren’t) so thick-skinned, I’d be offended any of you even doubted my veracity.

  10. The hell he would have. The war on drugs has been an amazingly lucrative operation, whether your a drug manufacturer or a drug warrior.

    If he tried to shut it down even in a *dream* his shareholders would have flayed him alive.

    1. You beat me to it. It’s one of the biggest and most profitable businesses on the face of the earth!

    2. But it only works for the drug warriors if they are allowed to steal other people’s money. It’s not really profitable for governments. It’s just an excuse to spend other people’s money. It’s profitable for the people in the drug enforcement and treatment industries. A business can’t operate that way.

      1. 1. Its profitable for the drug makers.

        2. Its profitable for the government – remember, not only can they demand money with menaces, but this gives them an excuse’ to demand more. Plus, the profitability metric for government is not . . .profit, its *power*.

        3. Its profitable for people in the treatment industry.

        1 & 3 show that a business *can* operate that way.

      2. True, but it is government subsidized. Lots of businesses thrive in that unholy paradigm.

        1. That was reply to Zeb.

  11. OT, but sort of related.

    I was watching Vice TV last night. They have a guy who goes all around the world to cover cannabis related stuff. Yeah, the guy is like the Anthony Bourdain of weed, he gets paid to fly all over the world and get high.

    Anyway, last night he was in DC and Amsterdam. The DC portion was really uninteresting I was already aware of the fucked up situation there, apparently caused in most part by some asshole GOP guy from Murland. Dumbshits, Stupid Party.

    But the Amsterdam situation was very interesting. Apparently if you have a cannabis cafe there, you can legally sell up to around a pound of weed and people can sit around smoking it all day. But no one in Holland is allowed to cultivate or sell weed. So an enterprise of small time growers sprang up to supply the need, mostly just single family residents who needed a little extra cash. But then the government cracked down on them so that the only supplier now is organized crime. All they have to do is walk into one of these Cafes with some weed and *poof*, it magically becomes legal. Good job government. cont…

    1. So the guy got an interview with a member of the conservatard party in government, who have been the party most responsible for the current legal situation. He asks conservatard guy about the situation and the guy says something to the effect of ‘Well, we have to keep growing and selling illegal because of the organized crime’. So the Vice guy says ‘But you’ve created the situation with organized crime by banning the sell and distribution of cannabis, while it remains legal to use and for cafes to sell it’. The gov guy then repeats the same exact thing ‘Look, I told you we have to keep it illegal because organized crime is involved’. So the Vice guy tries to ask him again in a different way and the guy gets sort of angry and says ‘Why do I have to keep repeating myself, I already told you the reason!’.

      1. “‘Look, I told you we have to keep it illegal because organized crime is involved’.”

        I don’t see what’s unclear about that.

        1. I don’t see why elected officials need to deal with logic and reason.


          1. What’s illogical about realizing on which side your bread is buttered?

          2. I imagined the good pol saying that with a wink and a nod and a finger along the left side of his nose.

      2. Drug warriors seem to have some severe mental block about that (or they are just dishonest). It’s pretty easy to see that organized crime is involved because it is illegal.

        I don’t know if it’s still like that now, but last time I was there the coffee shops also sold a lot of hash from Morocco, which is also moved by organized crime as importing it is very illegal.

        1. This was very recent, so I’m going to say yes.

        2. There will always be some shadiness involved, even it if becomes legal. Any product that practically sells itself, or any service that people constantly demand, is going to be ripe with opportunities for graft and collusion.

          Picking up the trash is not illegal, but the association of mafiosi with sanitation service is still credible. Alcohol distribution, a closer example, still has a lot of “questionable business practices” (a lot of which are endorsed and mandated by governments, no less).

          So the problem when arguing against them is that they are partly right. There will still be organized crime moving dope even if dope is legal. The difference is that, while it is illegal, the only major mover is organized crime. The opportunities for less violent, less coercive business are eliminated by law.

          That they just won’t recognize this point is either a mental failing (magical power of laws) or as Square = Circle hints above, it’s because they’re on the take.

          1. Well, I would point to cigarettes as counter-example.

            The provision of cigarettes is not rife with crime (organized or otherwise) or associated with shady black markets – except in those areas where there is extensive government intervention.

            Arizona’s only problem with cigarette associated crime is specifically due to the guys coming down from places like New York to buy them cheap in bulk and sell them up there without the NY tax markup.

            Plus they get our women pregnant before running back to NYC.


        3. Its a severe mental block.

          “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

          Its most blatantly obvious when you see these old cops, *after they’ve retired*, come around to an anti-prohibition stance.

    2. “Apparently if you have a cannabis cafe there, you can legally sell up to around a pound of weed and people can sit around smoking it all day”

      Yeah, but they put mayonnaise on their french fries.

      1. Have you tried it when you’re high?

        1. I can’t think of a stronger condemnation of pot than “it makes mayo fries taste good”.

    3. I went to amsterdam multiple times over the course of… the early 90s, the late 90s, and the early 2000s… and i think at some point during that time frame the structure of the coffee-shop supply chain was altered.

      I think in the 1990s, there was a healthy legal-industry built around the weed business, where growers were licensed, and there was a booming middle-tier industry in seed hybridization… there was an explosion in top-tier strains in the late 1990s which originated in Amsterdam then trickled down as far as the ‘door-to-door delivery guys’ in american cities via backdoor smuggling of seeds

      Basically, where your average weed dealer used to sell 1 type, now they’d have 6 specialty varieties

      then i think in the early 2000s, something along the lines of what you describe happened, where there was a breakup and de-legitimization of the production side. it may not have happened all at once. I vaguely remember hearing about it secondhand, but you know how iffy things get when information is being passed on by potsmokers. Everything i said could be sort of wrong; but what you were describing sounds very familiar.

      I think as you note that hash was always ‘backdoor’ imported; so i think even at its ‘cleanest’ and most-legitimate there was always some connection to illegal drug trade.

      1. ISTR it was mostly Germany that complained about Holland’s toleration of their illegal trade, so they had to crack down on some part of it. They never made non-medical product legal, but supposedly prioritize their enforcement.

  12. I really want to find out what drugs are worth literally more than

    I care about literary value

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.